Oct 4, 2007

My Point Of View...

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider a "shield law" for journalists that would radically alter the way national security investigations are conducted. Unlike state shield laws, a federal shield law poses unique obstacles to the protection of national security. We must know whether the proposed law squarely addresses a real problem before taking such a significant step.

Let's start from the common premise that a robust and free press and fair and effective law enforcement are both vital to our democracy. Since the Supreme Court ruled 35 years ago that reporters are obligated to comply with grand jury subpoenas, there has been no shortage of whistle-blowers -- from Watergate to Abu Ghraib. And the Justice Department operates under rigorous regulations restricting the issuance of subpoenas to journalists. These regulations, which require balancing the competing public interests in law enforcement and the flow of information to the media, have yielded only a trickle of subpoenas.

Against this background, a compelling case has not been made for jettisoning the legal framework that has guided this process for the past 35 years.

A threshold question lawmakers should ask is whether reporters will obey the law if it is enacted. They should ask because the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press calls for a shield law while urging journalists to defy the law when a court upholds a subpoena for source information. Any shield bill should require that a person seeking its protection first provide the subpoenaed information under seal to the court, to be released only if the court orders the information disclosed.

The proposed shield law poses real hazards to national security and law enforcement. The bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and the Robb-Silberman commission on prewar intelligence both found our national security at great risk because of the widespread leaking of classified information. The proposed law would have the unintended but profound effect of handcuffing investigations of such leaks. In many cases, authorities would face the Catch-22 of being required to prove specific criminal activity -- in a hearing before a judge, often resulting in notice to the subjects of investigation or their associates -- before they could take the investigative steps to determine whether criminal activity had occurred. In effect, the law would require "trial before investigation." Even worse, in cases involving leaks of classified information, the law would require the government to disclose in a hearing the specific damage caused by the leak -- information often more sensitive than the leak itself.

On a practical level, the bill would cause delays -- measured in years -- in national security investigations because prosecutors would be litigating (and appealing) instead of investigating serious crimes. As but one example, if classified nuclear secrets were published in a newspaper citing official sources at the Pentagon, the FBI would need to litigate with the newspaper before being allowed to use subpoenas to follow the trail of the Pentagon's own telephone or e-mail records. And the FBI might well lose because the bill, puzzlingly, requires that agents prove that the leak occurred without relying on the newspaper article.

The bill would have other serious consequences. "Journalism" is so broadly defined that it includes not just newspapers and bloggers but also criminal organizations that disseminate information widely. In recent cases in Chicago, this bill would have qualified as journalists:

"Charity" groups that raised money through Internet postings, purportedly for widows and orphans, but that actually diverted the funds to groups affiliated with al-Qaeda.

An Iraqi spy who had a cover job as a journalist.

A violent street gang that pirated a religious radio station to broadcast messages to gang members.

Child pornographers who shared information over the Internet.

The shield bill appears to address the first two cases but does not. The bill does not protect people if the government proves they are acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist group or foreign power. But the bill also handcuffs investigators from taking the steps necessary to obtain that proof. The bill does not even purport to exclude domestic terrorists, gangs or pedophiles. No senator or legitimate journalist wants to extend protection to terrorists or other criminals, but such is the vice of a law defining journalism.

Any shield bill raises important questions for our democracy and warrants close scrutiny. Certainly those who advocate a shield law do not wish to compromise national security or public safety. Similarly, those who oppose such a law intend neither to cripple the free press nor to suffocate dissent. Before acting in this sensitive area, Congress should take care that any legislation addresses demonstrated needs and does not create dangerous unintended consequences for national security and law enforcement. Congress -- and the public -- ought to be assured that the people who propose the shield law will themselves obey it. The proposed bill fails all these tests.

50 Comments:

It is a very good article, but I think he always weighs on the side of law enforcement...like, uh hmm The Patriot Act, Mr Fitzgerald.

One WaPo commenter saidI would disagree with one point, that the leaking of classified information puts our national security at risk. What it has been putting at risk is the brazen attack on our constitution and our civil rights by the imperial president, the ultra-secretive vice-president, and all the illegality and immorality they and their associates and supporters are trying to keep from us. Those who expose their violations of the law are to be thanked, as are the journalists who convey those truths to us.

I would examine the process that crafted this porous law. This law should have been crafted to be selectively porous. Porous and useful to the squeaky-clean. Non-porous and useless to the criminals.

The legislators [who vote this law, up or down] are seldom the ones writing the law. The legslator's staff members with help from committees and the CRS, Congressional Research Service actually write the law.

If there is a potential for mischief in this law, demand the law be re-written. Seal those holes that let the criminals pass.

You know how I feel about you and the faux-you :)

Celeste Aida

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I have not studied the law. I simply opine as a kibitzer.

It would seem that sometimes national secrets have nothing to do with security but protecting political and elite crooks and deviants. Shame on anyone that helps with this destructive abuse to our country and our children's future.

I wonder if Blackwater set up their own people so the Marines would be convinced to change their plans and attack Fallujah. Hang 'em high, he said. Bring it on, he said, Probably while listening to Elvis tunes.

So J Scottie leaves on the tail of Rover, for KY? Actually, it will be easier to interview him in the vote fraud stuff...there's some folks down there who are very concerned. I'm sure they will want to visit him, once he gets settled.

"Investigators are exploring whether Jackson, despite that testimony, had actually lined up a contract at the HUD-controlled Housing Authority of New Orleans, or HANO, for a golfing buddy and social friend from Hilton Head Island, S.C. The friend, William Hairston, was paid more than $485,000 for working at HANO during an 18-month period, according to figures provided by HUD and a former HANO official. The work was not competitively bid."

NYT-In a statement issued Friday night by Fort Lewis, the Army said: ''Every soldier is entitled to due process in answering charges made against him, and this case is no different. 1st Lt. Watada has always been, and will continue to be, treated fairly and according to law and military justice procedures.''

Jim Lobsenz, one of Watada's lawyers, said Watada that had been informed of the stay and ''he's very happy -- and I'm very happy too.''

Watada contends the war is illegal and that he would be party to war crimes if he served in Iraq. The Army refused his request to be posted in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that Watada can be court-martialed again, but Watada appealed that decision to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Armed Forces, which has not ruled, his attorneys wrote.

Watada lives in Olympia and continues to perform administrative duties at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle. His term of service ended in December, but the pending legal proceedings have prevented his discharge.

"Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.

She is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cell phones to people described in the lawsuit as ``underage males.'' "

Reminds me about the President of the school board here that killed himself yesterday when the FBI went to check his computer--the corporate republican owned news station didn't go into details.

It may be associated with other mental illnesses and medical disorders.

The current DSM-IV [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] has left out obesity as a psychciatric diagnosis, but word on the street is that the up-coming DSM-V may include obesity as a mental illness again.

Sheesh, he showed up in Court dressed like that with a plastic bag as a briefcase?

Celeste Aida

I have been [past-tense] Board Certified in Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing by the American Nurse's Association.

Good questions, CA...I'll have to check into that. If the military knows what the law is, they will leave Lt Watada alone...if they don't, go ahead-give him his day in court. Maybe they must be publicly flogged with the laws of the land.

If the war gets to a courtroom, it will be found illegal. There is no doubt, so simple a 6 year old could judge the case!

Thanks CA, for turning on my lightbulb today;D

Busy weekend, lovely weather. Yours truly will be out and about gathering up support for our troops. I can't wait to share with all of you what I have been working on. Its the first legislation of its kind to appear- it will spread across the country in no time;) And its got bunches of bi-partisan support. so much, republicans and dems wish THEY had thought of it-but they didn't.

You know me JB's, I support the troops and slap Massah Boosh in the face all at the same time...

????? I doubt he wrote or said this but since I'm not a ' journalist ; I'll keep on talking......

By Patrick J. Fitzgerald

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider a "shield law" for journalists that would radically alter the way national security investigations are conducted. Unlike state shield laws, a federal shield law poses unique obstacles to the protection of national security. We must know whether the proposed law squarely addresses a real problem before taking such a significant step.

Wifus, you and I are about the same age and I'm making one last effort. After all these years , I changed my party to Republican and am supporting Dr. Ron Paul for president. I agree with most everything he says.

Some of these Rove , media, mafia or others or their assignees have done everything they can to ' protect ' me ......... A better word might be antagonize.

I'm considering sending a letter to every member of congress and other officials and ask them to WAKE UP.

People keep asking me for the "EVIDENCE". It's in the public record. I do not mean the the newspaper.

Isn't law school 4 years college and 3 years more law school ?

Read or go to jail !

And if they really don't like you ; I'd recommend a radiation blanket.

Ask parents if they think the books their kids have to read with tests aren't designed to influence or pollute young minds. The same tactics "weekly reader" uses around election time or using kids as a pawn to convince the parents to accept corporations or politicians want done.

Never mind the little things like when U.S. troops were working with Iraqis on rebuilding their nation and Blackwater employees would make disrespectful remarks about the Iraqis' wives. Winning the peace or creating chaos? WWJD?

Bob Shieffer trying to say Blackwater was cheaper than the military. Ha! Soldiers say contractors took their jobs! Where is all the missing money? Why aren't the fat cat CEOs of these companies sitting in the privatized prison complexes with a sentence worthy of their crimes. Isn't justice suppose to blind?

People still falling for that soap scam? It reminds me of years ago when I was a waitress and this new college started up in town with a new *way of thinking (or not). Anyway, one by one they would cram into a booth where I worked, sitting for HOURS, only ordering coffee..emptying the creamers, sugar (a little coffee with your sugar and cream?). They would apologize and said they were hungry, that's why they used so much sugar and cream. Hmm...maybe they thought of an idea?

Soap scam came around again recently by stupid Republican cousin, my sis said "no thanks to Pyramid schemes." The new *way of thinking college in town went out of business years ago, as did the restaurant, foolish young waitress that was me in the late 70s, very sorry for working at "Sambo's".

Check out AAFCA. Something like that. See it on a can of Pet food. And say your prayers the USDA etc... is still in business. Nestle (subsidiares ... Purina , Friskies , and their other brands appear to be lobbying them out of our governmnet structure).

---Aileen Aranzamendez-Large----by the way, BOB P. BURNS WORKED FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AS A DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL TECH, HE NOW WORKS FOR DARPA. If he or any of his friends cannot arrest me for writing this---what does that tell you about me? I AM NOT CRAZY. I AM ALLOWED TO WRITE THESE THINGS AND WHEN BOB P BURNS IS KIDAPPED, ALONG WITH HIS FRIENDS---that tells you that I am right all along.So be smart and help me. I keep my promises.

DON'T FORGET MY NAME: AILEEN ARANZAMENDEZ-LARGE ALSO KNOWN AS AILEEN LARGE. if you googled and you read this---then be smart about it--the tech I am talking about is true and I will sue for billions of dollars with the others too.

Links to this post:

About Me

Think Globally Prosecute Locally
- I grew up in Flatbush, kept my nose clean, went to law school. Now that I am in Chicago and D.C. I have found that the rampant graft and corruption to be a travesty - a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
---Favorite quote --- "Conditional love is an oxymoron." - Yours truly